Truth is not what happened, it is what is judged to have happened. Current day writers, radio or television personalities have politicize most every "current day event". They are embolden with the concept that Truth is not what happened, it is what they say happened. And they happily arrange the facts to accommodate their peculiar way of thinking.
When will the "reporter" regain his/her place in presenting the news. Rather than ensuring that their own personal vendetta is presented, they have an obligation to report the event. With heavy emphasis on the word report. This is not to say that they should not offer an opinion, it is that their opinion must be separated from the issues so that it is clearly their mind's offerings.
Creative writing as a newspaper editor recently lectured us, is where the writer is encouraged to give colour, perhaps hypothetical interviews or even outright lies in the presentation of a viewpoint that ensures acceptance by a group of the public grasping for support for their cause, regardless of how just or unjust the "report" may be.
Cervantes said it best in QUIJOTE DE LA MANCHA when he had Don Quixote say; "it should be the duty of historians to be exact, truthful, and dispassionate, and neither interest nor fear nor rancor nor affection should swerve them from the path of truth, whose mother is history, rival of the past, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present and the future's counselor." Translators have the same difficulty in recognizing truth as does the historian. Both have the obligation to be factual but there is room for interpretation. This is best illustrated by Cervantes writing about "Truth, the mother of history" in various translations.
Peter Motteux translation:
"And against the truth of this history there can be but one objection, that
the author was an Arab, writers of that nation being not a little addicted to
fiction; though, as they are so much our enemies, it may be supposed that the
writer, in this instance, would fall short of rather than exceed the bounds of
truth And so, in fact he seems to have done; for when he might ought to have
launched out, in celebration the praises of so excellent a knight, it looks as
if he industriously passed them over in silence; a thing bad in itself, and
worse intended; for historians ought to be precise, faithful, and
unprejudiced; and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor affection, should
induce them to swerve from the way of truth, whose mother is history, rival of
time, the depository of great actions, witness of the past, example and
pattern of the present, and monitor of future generations. In this you will
certainly find whatever can be expected in the most pleasant performance; and,
if any perfection be wanted to it, it must, without question, be the fault of
the infidel, its author, and not owing to any defect in the subject. In short,
the second part, according to the translation, began in this manner:"
American Book Exchange, Peter Motteux, 1860, vol 1, chapter 9, pp 47.
Samuel Putnam's translation:
"If there is any objection to be raised against the veracity of the present
one it can only be that the author was an Arab, and that nation is known for
its lying propensities; but even though they be our enemies, it may readily be
understood that they would more likely have detracted from, rather than added
to, the chronicle.. So it seems to me, at any rate, for whenever he might and
should deploy the resources of his pen to praise of so worthy a knight, the
author appears to take pains to pass over the matter in silence, all of which
in my opinion is ill done and ill conceived, for it should be the duty of
historians to be exact, truthful, and dispassionate, and neither interest nor
fear nor rancor nor affection should swerve them from the path of truth, whose
mother is history, rival of the present, depository of deeds, witness of the
past, exemplar and adviser to the present and the future's counselor. In this
work, I am sure, will be found all that could be desired in the way of
pleasant reading; and if it is lacking in any way, I maintain that this is the
fault of the hound of an author rather than of the subject: But to come to the
point, the second part, according to the translation, began as follows:"
The Modern Library, Samuel Putnam, 1949, vol 1, chapter 9, pp 73.
Burton Raffel's translation:
"And if there is any possible objection to the truthfulness of the account, it
can only be that the author was an Arab, since it's very natural for people of
that race to be liars. On the other hand, since they're so very hostile to
us, the author is more likely to have toned down rather than embellished his
tale. Which seems to me, indeed, to have been what happened, since when he
could and should have let his pen go, in praise of such a fine knight, he
seems to have quite deliberately passed over things in silence ^� a serious
error and an even worse plan, for an historian should be accurate, truthful,
and never driven by his feelings, so that neither self interest nor fear,
neither ill will nor devotion, should lead him away from the highway of truth,
whose very mother is history, time's great rival ^� storehouse of men's
actions, witness of time past, example and bearer of tidings to the present,
and warning for the future. And here in this account I'm sure you'll find
everything you may want, presented in the pleasantest way, and if indeed
there's anything worthwhile missing, I'd blame it on its dog of an author,
rather than on any deficiency in the subject itself.
So this, according to the translation, is how the second part begins:"
Norton Critical Edition, Burton Raffel, 1999, vol 1, chapter 9, pp 52
Thomas Smollett's translation:
"There were divers other minute circumstances to be observed, but all of them
of small importance and concern to the truth of the history, though indeed
nothing that is true can be impertinent; however, if any objection can be
started to the truth of this, it can be no other but that the author was an
Arabian, of a nation but too much addicted to falsehood; though, as they are
at present our enemies, it may be supposed that he has rather failed than
exceeded in the representation of our hero's exploits; for, in my opinion when
he had frequently opportunities and calls to exercise his pen in the praise of
such an illustrious knight, he seems to be industriously silent on the
subject; a circumstance very little to his commendation; for all historians
ought to be punctual, candid, and dispassionate, that neither interest,
rancor, fear, or affection, may mislead them from the road of truth, whose
mother is history, that rival of time, that repository of great actions,
witness of the past, example and pattern of the present, and oracle of future
ages. In this, I know, will be found whatsoever can be expected in the most
pleasant performance; and if any thing seems imperfect, I affirm it must be
owing to the fault of the infidel its author, rather than to any failure of
the subject itself: in short, the second book of the translation begins
thus:"
Don Quixote, Thomas Smollett, David Huntington, 1814. Part 1, book 2, pp 107.
John Ormsby translation:
"If against the present one any objection be raised on the score of its truth,
it can only be that its author was an Arab, as lying is a very common
propensity with those of that nation; though, as they are such enemies of
ours, it is conceivable that there were omissions rather than additions made
in the course of it. And this is my own opinion; for, where he could and
should give freedom to his pen in praise of so worthy a knight, he seems to me
deliberately to pass it over in silence; which is ill done and worse
contrived, for it is the business and duty of historians to be exact,
truthful, and wholly free from passion, and neither interest nor fear, hatred
nor love, should make them swerve from the path of truth, whose mother is
history rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness for the past, example and
counsel for the present, and warning for the future. In this I know will be
found all that can be desired in the pleasantest, and if it be wanting in any
good quality, I maintain it is the fault of its hound of an author and not the
fault of the subject. To be brief, its Second Part, according to the
translation, began in this way:"
John Ormsby, The Heritage Press, Part 1, Chapter 9, pp 89
It was the fashion, in the seventies, among investigators on quixotic matters,
to find faults of every sort with the text, or at least with its printed form.
The inversion of the known sentence, "Truth is the mother of History,"
appeared to Ormsby as "a curious instance of the carelessness with which
Cervantes wrote and corrected." The playful spirit in which the beginning of
this chapter is written allows a certain margin for interpretation. What
Cervantes most probably meant was that "History ad usum Delphini is the mother
of official truth."
Spanish version:
"Si a esta se le puede poner alguna objecion cerca de su verdad, no podra ser
otra sino haber sido su autor arabigo, siendo muy proplo de los de aquella
nacion ser mentirosos; aunque, por ser tan nuestros enemigos, antes se puede
entender haber quedado falto con ella que demasiado Y ansi me parece a mi,
pues cuando pudiera y debiera extender la pluma en las alabanzas de tan buen
caballero, parece que de industria las pasa en silencio; cosa mal hecha y peor
pensada, habiendo y debiendo ser los historiadores puntuales, verdaderos y no
nada apasionados y que ni el intere's ni el miedo, el rencor ni la aficion no
les haga torcer el camino de la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, emula del
tiempo, deposito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo
presente, advertencia de lo por venir. En esta se' que se hallara' todo lo que
se acertare a desear en lo mas apacible; y si algo bueno en ella faltare, para
mi tengo que fue por culpa del galgo de su autor, antes que por falta del
sujeto.En fin, su segunda parte, siguiendo la traduccion, comenzaba desta
manera: tengo que fue por culpa del galgo de su autor, antes que por falta
del sujeto."
Libros editados para, Distribuciones Editoriales, Barcelona, 1973, pp75
*******
Choose which ever translation you like, but be aware that the "politically correct police" existed in the olden days as well as today. No where is this more obvious than in the Motteux translation as published by the American Book Exchange. The editors didn't change the wording, no much worse, they deleted entire sections that they viewed as too risque.
In deference to the feelings of Arabs, you must wonder when the above translations will be modified to be less demeaning toward these brothers. One can imagine what a current day text would look like if made suitable for reading by public school students.
Thus we come full circle. Cervantes wrote in the language of Spain in 1500, expressing all the prejudices of that time. Now, our "editor" worries that "creative" writing will interrupt the accurate depiction of events. The answer is simple, separate fact from fiction, as Cervantes so nicely presented his case, no one mistook Don Quixote as being other than the figment of the imagination. And, it was, and still is presented just so. It is the obligation of the editors to make sure that those who work in the media; read and reread Cervantes so that they understand what they are writing is not fiction, and the truth they write will be the mother of history.
****
Joe Wortham's Home Page , About Joe Wortham